MovieChat Forums > avortac4 > Replies
avortac4's Replies
It's therefore possible, that when interpreting enormous amounts of constantly-flowing visual data, making this kind of 'tracking boxes' to mix with the 'organic torrent of visuals' helps program the 'visual data interpretation algorhithms' to be more efficient - if you can put a box or selection on some object and then lock and track it visually, the CPU can interpret the mixture of the 'organic visuals and computer-generated overlay that functions together' more efficiently and easily, than if it had to just do it all without any visuals.
From _THIS_ perspective (no pun intended), a HUD that the CPU sees is FEASIBLE, even if not 100% necessary - from a programming point of view, this kind of visual might help quite a lot, and of course testing the tracking and stuff in the factory is VASTLY easier if there's some kind of visual to interpret things more directly than having to go through thousands of lines of code just to identify a screwdriver.
You can think of this as how 'A.I.' actually learns in our modern real world - it doesn't just generate code, it actually visually 'looks at' things and then makes interpretations. When an A.I. plays a game, it does it visually, and it learns from its mistakes. The HUD makes sense from this kind of point of view, where A.I. is trying to be more like a human, so it even LEARNS more like a human, which means it learns VISUALLY and AURALLY, like a human would, which does necessitate a HUD to help with all this.
Technically, a future-tech robot might not have needed a HUD, but for all the purposes I stated, it COULD be useful and of course no robot is an island, there are tech robots and factories that need the DIAGNOSTICS if something goes wrong or for upgrades and maintenance, intelligence gathering and such, and it's vastly more efficient to have a visual representation of EVERYTHING important, all the information on-screen for this kind of a purpose, especially since an A.I. CAN learn, look things in a 'human way'.
"In real life a machine like that would see anything in a bunch of computer code. Basically what you would see in the matrix. "
Definitely not.
In 'real life' (and the 'LIFE' part is questionable here), computers wouldn't, and do not 'see' things.
Do you think a CPU visually sees 'the code', and furthermore, do you think it looks like 'The Matrix'??
Computers, CPUs, GPUs and other chips do not 'see' anything. They do not have eyes. They do not have VISUAL systems to process information. They are simply full of fluctuating, electronic dichotomy, and that's ALL. There's ABSOLUTELY NO SIGHT OF ANY KIND INVOLVED, it wouldn't look like ANYTHING.
If you really wanted to FORCE a 'visual' into how a computer would 'see things', then it still wouldn't be 'a bunch of computer code' (not that 'computer code' exists, it's just 'code', 'programming language' or 'CPU code' at best - computers don't have a specific 'code', but even CPUs really don't, when you get down to it)..
It would be just zeroes and ones. That's it. That's all a CPU is and does - it 'endlessly' changes zeroes to ones and ones to zeroes, and sometimes keeps a zero or one from changing. That's ALL a CPU ever really does.
However, a robot like this DOES have 'vision', and it needs to be able to INTERPRET that vision to be able to function in the three-dimensional world (the HUD should be in 3D, really, because that's how human vision works to let us see in three dimensions, surely the machines would utilize the two eyes to mimic this, because it's EXTREMELY useful when functioning this kind of a world - therefore, the HUD should be able to interpret three-dimensional environment in actual three dimensions, not just be a flat 2D visual representation)..
Here is where a HUD can be useful - if you look at what Tesla's cameras do, although much of it IS aimed for human eyes, it still does plot boxes on things and track the movement of those things and so on.
That's just a horror movie cliché, deal with it.
Then again, it IS really stupid and illogical, but there are similar inconsistencies throughout the movie. First the robot tries to negotiate with people, and only murders them after they assault it (though it should've had faster movements due to not having reflexes or lag, so no one should ever be able to stab it, even Bruce Lee wouldn't have been fast enough against someone that functions in the world of microseconds), but then it stops murdering people and just throws them around a bit (the phone booth scene), then it verbally confirms things first (gun shop, first Sarah murder we're shown), then it goes to full rampage mode without confirming if the victim is Sarah or not and so on and so forth - it decides to waste time by throwing Matt around instead of killing it with one punch, strangle or gunshot, and SO ON)..
This movie is FULL of inconsistencies and you only talk about one?
Definitions of movie genres matter.. why?
What does it matter what anyone defines things, as long as those things full their intended purpose? If a movie is entertaining and good, what difference does it make what anyone defines it?
Technically, it's not even 'action science fiction' (what kind of genre definition is that anyway, why use a slash, why not use hyphen and so on?).
According to the movie itself AND the filmmakers, this movie is supposed to be 'Tech-Noir'.
So not only are you JUST as wrong (or more) as the people you are accusing of being wrong, you don't even understand what you are talking about.
Also, why isn't this a horror movie? WHAT defines a horror movie? How big a percentage of a movie has to be 'scary' (which is an opinion anyway) for it to be horror? What if people find naked Arnold scary?
I mean, you are on a very thin ice of bad opinions here that you are trying to peddle as actual facts, someone HAD to set you straight.
I don't really even know how to define a 'horror movie'. I don't see why this movie couldn't be defined as such, as it IS supposed to be scary, and to a young audience, it definitely IS stuff of nightmares. Think about the premise; an unkillable enemy that's only reason to exist and function is to KILL YOU, constantly stalking and stalking you until it murders you, possibly painfully and brutally.
Can YOU think of a scarier situation?
Think about it; this massive Austrian Bodybuilder-looking robot walks to some cop (who? where?), that not only KNOWS where Sarah Connor is, but also openly gives out this information to anyone who asks? WHAATT??
I mean, if you give information to someone that looks like THAT, surely you will give this sensitive information to ANYONE. Do cops just tell random people the locations of protected people in custody? How did the news about exactly Sarah Connor spread so quickly to other cops in the eighties? Why would every cop need to know this?
Wouldn't Sarah's identity AND location be a REALLY WELL-KEPT SECRET in the 'police community', since two Sarah Connors have already been 'brutally murdered'?
WHAT KIND OF SENSE.. I am so tired of asking this question.. DOES ANY OF THIS MAKE?
"GIVE HER A FAKE NAME AND A DECENT DISGUISE."
Yeahl, she could've worn a moustache.
To be more serious, there are WAY more serious problems with the story, WAY better tactics and strategies they could've done, and so on, so your post - no offence - is a bit irrelevant. I mean, if you look at all the things I have alrady said, and then conjure up a few more thoughts along those lines.. yeah.
Just for ONE example, Sarah knows her stupid phone calls got her in trouble. Sarah can impart information to her past self via John-Kyle link. Therefore, she could've told John to tell Kyle to ABSOLUTELY stop her from making any phone calls EVER, and tell her that the Terminator can mimic her mom and so on.
Also, tell John to send Kyle 10 or 20 years earlier, so he can properly prepare everything, and make Sarah NOT keep a notebook with names and phone numbers, and and and..
I mean, there are probably eight hundred different things they could've easily done differently to ABSOLUTELY defeat this robot AND Skynet AND make future good, but this movie doesn't make too much sense.
What you are saying is just a tiny detail on the tip of an enormous iceberg, they could've done SO many things SO differently, your suggestion kind of drowns in the sea of nonsense while shrinking in its own insignifigance.
How would she give a fake name to the cops anyway, they can run checks and all.
What _I_ would like to know is.. WHO gave the location information of a sensitive, protected individual in custody to a shady-looking (pun intended, for those that get it) bodybuilder that wears shades (now everyone probably gets it) in the evening, together with a punk leather jacket (that he got where? Why did it abandon its original jacket anyway? Bullet holes? Not that it should care, it's not very careful about 'infiltration' or 'not drawing attention' anyway)...?
I mean, I would LOVE to see that situation..
He's not defined by his line, he's not a 'what the hell'-guy. In any case, use a damn hyphen.
You have a peculiar way of defining 'smartest man in movie history'. Surely there have been inventors and mathematicians in movie history that are smarter than this GARBAGE TRUCK DRIVER.
Is this a woke thing? Are we not allowed to say someone is dumb if their bodily attributes are of a certain type?
In any case, what's so SMART about him? All he does is obey his FEAR. Is anyone obeying their fear smart in your opinion?
He got scared and run away. This is not evidence of being smart, even really dumb animals can (and will) do this. Is every rabbit I have ever seen 'the smartest man in movie history'?
You could call him 'self-preserving', 'obeying fear', but SMART? Let alone SMARTEST?!
By what metric is self-preservance the same as 'being smart'?
Also, wouldn't it ACTUALLY be smarter to investigate a strange phenomenon to gain knowledge and information about it, so you can then perhaps make wiser choices in the future, to utilize this new energy or prevent something? I mean, from his standpoint, he ABANDONS all possibility for gaining information and new experiences, and RUNS AWAY from anything that doesn't fit his conformistic, predictable, expected experience zone.
He runs to his safety zone, when people should be exploring life outside of that.
Smartest..? I am not sure people that talk about 'smart people' are always all that smart, especially in movie discussion boards..
I would rather see a movie that makes sense than adding horror to an already horrible-enough a movie. Also, that wouldn't be 'scarier', it would just be 'even stupider', and also more disgusting. This movie is already disgusting and stupid enough.
Add more intelligence, not more gore and horror, please.
" You’d think of all people...Mr. UNIVERSE could somewhat keep it together."
Just having been DESIGNATED something does not mean anything.
He did use STEROIDS, after all - his muscles are not organic and naturally generated and grown, they're done using a CHEAT CODE, so of course there will be drawbacks. I suspect Stallone (I presume you mean him by 'Sly') went a more organic, healthier route, which is why his muscles look better and less 'freaky' than 'Mister Universe''s did at his heyday.
If you look at Arnold's muscles at their biggest, maximum peak, you can realize they do not look very 'natural' or 'real', but 'freaky' and 'weirdly bloated'. I am not sure if this is the full explanation, but hey, people's bodies age.
It's not a 'he', it's an 'it'.
Also, robots don't 'hook up with some women' unless you mean with a literal hook, or unless they're programmed to do so. A terminator has no soul, therefore, it has no 'human needs'. It doesn't have hormones, and even the schlong is just basically dead, rotting piece of biological matter. It has no need, urge, desire or ability to 'mate' or even kiss, and it would get nothing out of a 'hug'.
As Kyle explains, it doesn't feel pity, remorse or fear - this would extend to not feeling love, desire, romance, lust, or anything else that people generally feel.
Why or how the heck would it EVER 'hook up with some women', especially DURING a mission? Even if it DID plan on something like this, wouldn't it make more sense to do it AFTER the mission?
After all, people don't just go on some strategic mission that the whole world's future depends on, and plan to just have coitus all over the place DURING it, thus endangering the mission severely!
Something is wrong with either your thinking or your programming, you should be brought back to the factory for a full diagnostics and repairs.
Men don't have cleavage.
In any case, Arnold is an Austrian bodybuilder and a career-builder that built his career by taking lots of hormones and bloating his muscles to the max.
He, of course, would've wanted to show off those muscles, and since chest muscles are the easiest way to show off 'imposing strength' visually, that is what's done to depict a 'strong villain character' - not only here, but look at Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Same thing, no shirt, just 'impressive chest muscles' to create a visually imposing imagery.
Covers of movies are basically 'art', they do not have to conform to the story or any other aspect of the movie, their purpose is to make people want to watch the movie by almost any visual means necessary. This is pretty tame by comparison to what some other movies have done, and how much they have exaggerated things on the cover.
Why complain about something like this? Why would you think men have 'cleavage'?
Why bother writing 'TL/DR'? What does that add? Just leave the discussion to us who actually can type and think about things, and go play Super Mario or something.. if you don't have enough intelligence to read a simple, relatively short post in a discussion board, you have no business being in discussion boards.
Yeah, I know the modern people and their 'two-word youtube comments tapped on your thumbs while you're on a bus eating a hamburger', but I can't understand it. Use a proper computer, use your brain, think properly, read properly, answer properly, and use correct grammar, for crying out loud.
There's just so much to complain about your (completely intelligence-devoid and useless) post, I could write a book about it. You, of course, wouldn't read it, because you can't read anything more complex or longer than what's written on a cereal box, and even that's probably too much for the modern mind with attention span of two seconds MAX.
To get back to the topic..
I don't mind a time-traveling killer robot from the future (this would've been a more accurate name, as the robot never terminates anyone it's supposed to terminate, and as RLM said, they should be called 'Tryanators'), but the inconsistent behaviour and nonsensical things that shouldn't logically happen are just bad writing.
Why do something as lightweight as BULLETS generate enough force to MOVE this massively heavy robot body? Except sometimes, when they don't seemingly do anything? Inconsistency again. Sometimes the robot seems to be swayed heavily by single bullets, then a hail from a machine gun does NOTHING. What? WHY?
A bullet wouldn't even make a man move, let alone a heavy robot like that. It would be like raindrops on an elephant - exactly as shown in some scenes.
If it's going to blow its cover ANYWAY by publicly carrying enormous weapons, guns and such, then WHY BOTHER with the facade of the 'responses' or ANY conversations (and why not kill the janitor, too? It kills everyone in the police station it sees, so why this inconsistency?), and WHY WEAR THE SUNGLASSES if you are going to just massacre whole buildings full of people anyway?
It makes no sense!
Not that almost anything makes much sense in this (or almost any other) movie, but when you think about these things, it's really weird. Also, why shoot Ginger, but beat up Matt (and very slowly and inefficiently, too)?
Why be so stealthy when entering their apartment that Matt doesn't even know there's anyone there until he opens his eyes by happenstance, and yet be SO unstealthy in the police station?
If you compare its behaviour when it enters the motel to when it enters Sarah's and Ginger's apartment, there's a WORLD of difference. Why is this? What has changed?
For all it knows, any of the cops could have BEEN Sarah - it didn't stop to scan everyone's face, it shoots some of them from behind. Yet it verbally CONFIRMS 'Sarah Connor' instead of just kicking the door in and starting to shoot when it comes to the fat Sarah Connor. Why the inconsistency?
Is there some kind of random number generator that dictates how this robot behaves in any given situation, or is it damaged or does it reprogram itself or what? Nothing it does makes any sense due to all the inconsistencies.
"The point of the movie was not revenge, it was Jamie ( as Jake) getting a second chance with Keri. In order to do this he had to finish off the bad guys. "
It's absolutely about revenge, your flimsy explanation makes NO sense whatsoever.
Are you saying if Jake killed the bad guy immediately in the beginning, some OTHER 'bad guy' (which were just clueless drugged teens following a charismastic leader, really, they were not necessarily 'bad', they just hadn't been taught how to be 'good') would've tried to mess with their relationship or somehow STOP him from taking her into the afterlife?
I mean, how would they have been able to stop him when all he had to do is say 'hop in' and then ride into the horizon?
If it was -really- like that, all he had to do is prevent the 'bad guys' from moving until he's gone.
Also, he didn't 'finish off' anyone - when you think about it, he simply BROUGHT THEM WITH HIM.
I mean, they all went to 'afterlife' because they were killed, right? Jake and Keri travel to the same afterlife, so if anything, Jake made SURE the 'bad guys' can all continue harassing him and Keri as much as they want, as they're now all in the SAME DIMENSION (which wouldn't have happened if Jake hadn't AVENGED so much).
No, this movie is all about revenge, and Keri is just the hollyweird injected romance cliché number one: ALWAYS PUT ROMANCE IN EVERY GOD DAMN MOVIE.
This movie would've been basically the same without Keri in it, except we wouldn't have had as much eye candy and sympathy for and understanding for the motivations of the main character, plus he is really shown to be some kind of 'good guy', and the only way to do that is to show him doing 'good deeds', like giving the futuristic magic car to his (ex-)brother, and taking Keri into the afterlife.. so he also murders her?
Yeah, movies are not really very good at making sense.
As another sidenote, Milton's logic makes no sense, either. If someone listens to music with headphones, it isn't disturbing to the surroundings. If someone listens to radio at 'reasonable volume', it is disturbing to the surroundings. So it's not the same thing at all!
Furthermore, who defines 'reasonable volume'?
Also, why doesn't he understand that the main character is not talking about whether he's ALLOWED to listen, but whether he would be willing to do a FAVOR and turn it down just to help a fellow human being a bit? I know he's portrayed as thick (in many, so many ways), but would they even HIRE someone that's actually stupid to do some kind of corporate paperwork that WOULD realistically require some level of intelligence that SHOULD be enough to at least understand what the main character is talking about?
I am telling ya, the more I dig into Milton, the less his character seems to make any kind of sense. Try to make sense out of Milton from any perspective, I dare ya!
This is the board for discussing 'Weekend at Bernie's (1989)', not some other movie.
Having said that, the sequel is pretty much -exactly- as any relatively intelligent entity might predict and expect based on this incredibly silly first movie..
..except the sequel is much worse than anyone would readily be able to imagine. It's really, really bad.
This 'movie', such as it is, is way better than the sequel, but that's not saying much, as this movie itself is incredibly silly and practically a live-action cartoon.
The only actor .. LEFT? Do you mean politically, or 'alive'?
In any case, I think there are so many others that you should check out, because Atkinson's stuff can be quite a lot of 'hit and miss'. It's brilliant at its best, it's horrible at its worst. Watch the awful Mr. Bean-movies and the 'Johnny English'-movies to see his bad stuff, and watch the Mr. Bean TV show and Black Adder for his good stuff.
In any case, how about Hale & Pace? They were very varying duo, so it's not just slapstick, but they were perhaps the funniest comedy duo I have ever seen.
Then there is John Cleese and all the Monty Python stuff, the old Seinfeld show with Kramer falling all over the place, even 'The Office' has its share of slapstick.
Now, I was never a big fan of slapstick - a pie on someone's face is not something I can find humor in. Maybe I am faulty that way, but I just don't understand where the 'funny' stuff is, it's like a fart joke, what's funny about a natural bodily function? Someone getting hurt is never funny to me, and I just think of the poor guy (it's usually a guy) who has to wash his face repeatedly to try to get the smell of butter or cream out and it can stink like that for days, and from what I heard, is quite an ordeal.
There are plenty of older comedy movies that have pretty good slapstick, though, like Spaceballs, Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad! or Airplane!.
(Sorry if I messed up the exclamation points, I don't see the point in using those in names)
In the end, I don't think Mr. Bean can be fully be classified as 'slapstick', even though it doesn't rely much on dialogue. I still prefer Black Adder's more cerebral style to slapstick, but to each their own. I think Atkinson's schtick is a bit old and worn-out, just like Jim Carrey's.
Once you've seen Liar, Liar and the Ace Ventura movies, you can easily realize that's pretty much his whole bag of tricks, he has nothing more to show you, it's just repetition or variation of those things.
".Having said that, some of the additions seem to work better on a TV show, such as the red 'killer' Tripods"
Killer tripods make no sense - the whole concept is that you're either capped or a vagrant, and either case, you're harmless. There's no need to kill people after the war is over; now you can focus on CONTROLLING and enslaving them to make them work for you and to make sure they never reach intelligence or regain 'ancient' knowledge.
I mean, if they were going to kill people, who would those people be? 'Troublemakers'? That's what the cap is for. They don't even kill those that cap just messes up, because they become mad. Who is there left to have killer tripods for?
That kind of thing makes no sense at all.
"The "cap" is a mind control device"
That's like saying 'a computer is a number calculator'.
Sure, you'd be trivially correct, but a computer is just so much more than something that computes.
The cap (no need for quotes) is way more than just a mind-control device. It's a PERSONALITY-CHANGING and sometimes -DESTROYING system that operates on multiple levels, keeping the personality of someone permanently as 'neutered'. It's like a technological castration system, it's a dumbing-down machine as well. It doesn't let you achieve the highest levels of intelligence and wisdom a human being can, it .. if you will .. CAPS you at a certain point.
It's like an intelligence-cap, skill-cap, etc. The word 'cap' is perfect, because it describes SO many things - a 'stop' to your spiritual and intellectual evolution, it caps you at a certain point, a hat (which it sort of is, a permanent, partially imbedded hat), a cover of some kind (it covers your head), and so on.
It can't be easily translated to other languages exactly because it so perfectly means so many things.
I hate when people simplify things and by doing so, distort their meaning. The Cap is SO MANY THINGS, it's a crime to just reduce it to a mere 'mind-control device'. If you're capped, you become a hopeless case. If it was just a mind-control device, you could still go back to your original self after the control is over. But with cap, you can't go back, ever, because it permanently CHANGES you, it destroys something valuable and the only way for you to regain your true self is to DIE.
So please be more careful in the future in how you describe things.
I know this comes almost two decades too late, but better late than never..